[WikiEN-l] Nude Kate Winslet Picture

Fri Apr 15 02:34:23 UTC 2005

Karl A. Krueger wrote:
> What's wrong with censorware tagging?  Where to start?  Here's the
> biggie:  tagging is incompatible with Wikipedia's existing commitments.
>
> No system of tags is compatible with Wikipedia's commitment to
> neutrality.  The dimensions, biases, and extremes of any system of tags
> are created from a particular non-neutral point of view.  Wikipedia is
> categorically forbidden from taking on such a point of view as its own.
>
> By "dimensions" I mean the types of material that are considered worth
> tagging -- e.g. nudity; violence; religion.  The reason that commercial
> censorware products have an "explicit nudity" dimension and not a
> "explicit Christianity" dimension should be tolerably obvious in the
> marketplace -- but Wikipedia does not have any business deciding for 
> its
> readers that "nudity" is problematic and needs to be a filtering option
> but "Christianity" doesn't.
>
> By "biases" I mean the inherent bigotries that will be encoded into any
> particular category.  A system which considers female breasts to be
> "nudity" but male chests not to be is sexist by nature.  (And anyone 
> who
> thinks that female breasts are "sexual" but male chests are not simply
> has not asked enough straight women or gay men for their opinion on the
> issue.)

You're absolutely right, but you're also wrong.

First of all, on a minor note, you overstate the NPOVness of Wikipedia. 
There is no "view from nowhere." Every edit is POV -- so called NPOV 
just means arriving at POVs by consensus if possible and majority if 
not. It would be no different for breasts/Christianity/homosexuality 
tags than it is for anything else that we argue about.

But you are right about it being problematic, or excessively POV-laden, 
to have any simple criteria like I was suggesting, or just suggested on 
the other thread. (E.g. having "sexual content/nudity" being the 
"dimension" and only two or three options on that dimension.) As you 
point out there are many kinds of "objectionable" subject matter and 
many degrees within each.

But the solution is not to throw up our hands and sacrifice Wikipedia's 
success because NPOV supposedly ties our hands -- the solution would be 
to **leave the choice of objectionable content in the hands of the end 
user**. We create [[Special:Censorship]]. If a user blanks it, 
Wikipedia is uncensored. If a user puts the tags {{img.genitals}}, 
{{img.femalebreasts}}, and {{paganism}} on it, he doesn't see genitals 
or Kate Winslet, or even see articles about pagans. If another user 
puts {{img.malechests}}, {{img.ankles}}, and {{christianity}}, she 
doesn't see pictures of those things or articles on Christianity.

A setup more or less like this would make things more complicated, and 
like all things Wikipedia would never be completely finished, but it 
would solve the problem, and it is immune to Karl's objection. People 
would generally put {{img.femalebreasts}} tags on things like Kate 
Winslet, and people at work, etc. could set up their 
[[Special:Censorship]] page and that would be that.

Of course, most people would realize it's not worth the trouble trying 
to protect yourself/kids from homo kisses and pagans and boobies. But 
until everyone grows up, it's probably either "fork" (so to speak, via 
what I just described) or be forked (eventually).

Zach